Comment Analysis · Docket FS-2025-0001

FS-2025-0001-314895

Opposes rescissionA0 noneSubstance 6/24Posted September 4, 2026 On Regulations.gov

Small family — One letter sent by 3 to 9 people, copied or lightly reworded. One of 6 submissions in its group; the sender added words of their own. See the letter, its submissions and topics.

Scored with own additions — A family member whose own text beyond the shared letter was scored and combined with the letter's score.

Scorecard

Each dimension is scored 0–3; the eight sum to the substance score out of 24.

Specific placeNames a specific location — from a region down to an exact creek, trail, road, or map reference.
Local knowledgeDraws on a first-hand connection to the place — visits, sustained activity, occupation, or a professional role.
EA analysisEngages the agency's environmental analysis directly.
Analytical gapIdentifies something the analysis fails to address.
EvidenceBacks claims with specific facts, data, or research.
RequestMakes a specific, actionable request of the agency.
AlternativeProposes a different course of action.
LegalCites statutes, regulations, or legal obligations.

How hard it is to set aside

A0 none: Counted, not answered.

Still open to the agency

Alternative already eliminated The agency says it considered and eliminated the alternative the comment proposes, with a reason. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Already addressed The agency says its analysis already covers the point. Defeated when the comment cites the law itself: there is no analysis to cite against a statutory claim.
Deferred to a later decision The agency says the point belongs to a later, site-specific decision. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Misreads the proposal The agency says the comment misunderstands what is proposed. Defeated when the comment engages the proposal or a named place directly.
Not required The agency says the analysis the comment asks for is not required. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
Preference noted The agency notes the comment as a statement of preference and takes no action on it. Cannot be defeated from the comment text alone.
No cause and effect shown The agency says the comment asserts a harm without showing how the action causes it. Defeated when the comment shows the mechanism.
Outside the scope The agency says the comment asks about a different action. Defeated when the comment is specific and tied to this proposal.
Certified not substantive The agency certifies the comment raises nothing substantive. Defeated when the comment alleges illegality, which is substantive by the definition the certification runs on.

Topics

Wildlife Habitat
- “landscape connectivity for wide-ranging species like wolverine and Canada lynx”
- “wildlife we work to protect lives in these areas and depends on habitat free from human development”
- “Roads fragment and degrade wildlife habitat”
Water Quality Quantity
- “clean, cold water for downstream communities”
- “dump sediment into fish habitat and spawning beds each year”
Recreation Tourism Public Use
- “some of the best backcountry recreation in the state”
- “free from industrial development”
Cultural Heritage Indigenous
- “support cultural and subsistence practices”

The comment

Roadless areas are some of the last places on public lands free from industrial development. They provide landscape connectivity for wide-ranging species like wolverine and Canada lynx, and clean, cold water for downstream communities. Wildlife in these areas depend on habitat free from human development. They also support cultural and subsistence practices and some of the best backcountry recreation in the state. There are already more roads on national forests than can be affordably maintained. The Forest Service manages a 380,000-mile road system with a growing $10.8 billion maintenance backlog that has persisted for decades, and it receives funding to maintain only a fraction of that system. The proposal also misstates what the rule already allows. Restoration thinning and prescribed burning are both permitted in roadless areas. The rule limits commercial timber harvest, but hauling logs out of steep backcountry terrain was never going to pencil out for mills in the first place. The constraint here is economics and topography, not regulation. Roads fragment and degrade wildlife habitat, act as vectors for human fire ignitions, and dump sediment into fish habitat and spawning beds each year. In Washington, about 85% of fires are caused by people each year. We need our wild country more than we need new forest roads. NEVER RESCIND THE ROADLESS RULE!!!!!!!